JUDGMENT A.N. Saigal, I.A.S., Chairman. - This is a revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act against the order dated 18-11-1983 passed by Sri Anand Bihari Srivastava, Record Officer, Gonda. 2. I have heard the parties and gone through the record of the case. 3. The question involved in this case is whether boundary can be determined during the course of record operation without deciding title in individual cases. 4. The facts of the case are that there was a gap between the boundaries of villages. Firstly the boundary was determined in terms of compromise. Later on, objection was raised by the Naib Tahsildar before the Assistant Record Officer that the position of actual possession on the spot by the residents of different persons was different. According to the report on the Naib Tahsildar, dated 9-1-1979, 95 bighas of land was in possession of residents of village Phaska and the remaining 109 bighas of land was in possession of the villagers of village Bansgoan. The Assistant Record Officer took the view that the boundary should be determined on the basis of possession. The Record Officer has taken the view that since nobody has said that the land was in his possession in any way different from the report of the Naib Tahsildar, hence there should be no objection to the eliivnt of the boundary accordingly and consequently he dismissed the appeal. Against this order, the present revision petition has been moved under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. 5. The order of the Record Officer, Gonda, has been challenged under Section 234(d) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and rules made thereunder. Section 234 read as follows : "234. Power of State Government and board to make rules . Against this order, the present revision petition has been moved under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. 5. The order of the Record Officer, Gonda, has been challenged under Section 234(d) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and rules made thereunder. Section 234 read as follows : "234. Power of State Government and board to make rules . - The State Government may make rules consistent with this Act, in respect of matters under clauses (a), (b), (e), (v), (i), (w), (t), (x), (i) and (y) and Board may, from time to time, subject to the sanction of the State Government make rules, consistent with this Act in respect of matter under clause (v) (ii), (w) and (x) (ii) (d) prescribing the form, contents, method of preparation, attestation and maintenance of the record-of-right and other maps, field books, registers and lists made and kept under this Act and prescribing the kind of land, if any, in respect of which any such record need not be prepared under Section 32 ?" Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue (Survey and Record Operation) Rules, 1978, reads as under : 8 (1) - Before actually commencing map correction or survey work of the village, the boundaries of contiguous villages should be tallied and if their is any overlaping or gap in the boundaries, tracing of the relevant portions from the maps of the villages should be taken by the survey kanungo and the matter be reported for decision through the Survey Naib-Tahsildar. This procedure shall be followed even if any contiguous village is not under record operation. 8 (2) - The Survey Naib-Tahsildar shall make inquiries on the spot after giving sufficient notice to the Pradhans and members of the Land Management Committee and also the general public of the villages involved in dispute and submit his report to the Assistant Record Officer. 8 (3) - The Assistant Record Officer shall soon after the receipt of any such report make inquiries on the spot in the presence of the persons referred to in sub-rule (2) and pass suitable orders revising maps of the villages concerned". The rule pertaining to may correction is rule 9, which reads as follows : "(1) The village map of the area under survey or record operations may be revised either (i) by Ordinary method of map correction, or (ii) by survey or re-survey. The rule pertaining to may correction is rule 9, which reads as follows : "(1) The village map of the area under survey or record operations may be revised either (i) by Ordinary method of map correction, or (ii) by survey or re-survey. (2) The Assistant Record Officer after examining the condition of maps shall decide which of the two methods specified in sub-rule (1) should be adopted." 6. It has also been averred before me that in order to understand the sequence envisaged by law and rules, the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue (Survey and Record Operation) Rules, 1978, should be read as a whole and in context and rules 8 and 9 should not be read out of context. After reading the rules as a whole, I am satisfied that the first rule is Rule 8 and the second rule is rale 9. The first 7 rules deal with the procedure prior to the notification and leading upto the notification of record operation. Thereafter, rules 8 and 9 clearly mention how the boundary disputes are to be decided. Rule 8 has already been quoted above. The present case deals with a case of gaping and as has been mentioned by the learned Record Officer in his judgment dated 8-11-1983, the Assistant Record Officer did not accept the compromise between the two villages because the dispute raised by the Survey Naib Tahsildar was different and showed different land from the land mentioned in the dispute which has raised in the Survey Naib Tahsildars report. Obviously, when gaping was there, the boundary would be decided on the basis of actual possession and that would have nothing to do with title. The title would remain with the person who is the lawful tenure holder of the land and would be determined in terms of the procedure laid down in rules 15 to 30. The rules obviously envisage fixation of boundaries earlier, that is why rules 8 to 14 deal with it and thereafter questions of title are raised. The fear that if the village boundary is fixed before determining the title it would effect the title adversely is baseless, because the procedure is given in rules 15 to 30. All disputes pertaining to title would be decided accordingly and every person would have a right of appeal or revision, according to law. The fear that if the village boundary is fixed before determining the title it would effect the title adversely is baseless, because the procedure is given in rules 15 to 30. All disputes pertaining to title would be decided accordingly and every person would have a right of appeal or revision, according to law. Therefore, as mentioned by the learned Record Officer in his judgment, that whatever land as found in the gap has been correctly disposed of by the learned Assistant Record Officer. Nobody raised question of title and, therefore, the Assistant Record Officer want by possession. It was found by the Naib-Tahsildar that the villagers of village Phaska were in possession of 95 bighas of land and 109 bighas of land was in possession of the residents of village Bansgaon. So, he determined the boundary of the gap accordingly. At the state of distribution of khatauni slips in the terms of rule 7(4), notices will be issued to all concerned and then they would be able to file objection. So, there is no need to interfere with the order of the learned Record Officer. 7. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.